Please excuse the fact that I have already posted this suggestion on a couple of other threads, but I wanted to get more opinion on it......

If the ranking system can't be made to MEAN something... uh meaningful then it might as well be scrapped.

Personally I would favour keeping it, but ditching the current system of calculation.

Might sound complcated (but bear in mind the computer does the brain work).....

If you win, you score the reciprocal of the percentage that your side normally wins the scenario.

Lets say that a scenario is won 24% of the time by Axis and 76% of the time by the Allies.

An Axis Win would gain you 7.6 points or a loss would lose you 2.4 points

An Allied win would gain you 2.4 points or a loss would lose you 7.6 points

It can therefore be seen that if (as is hoped) opponents play both sides of a scenario, You can win exactly 10 points if you win with both sides, and lose exactly 10 points if you lose with both sides. A win and a loss would result in either a small gain or a small loss of points. Removing the wild swings currently in evidence.

This would be a far better system than the current one because the difficulty of the scenario is the predominant factor, and better players would tend to rise to the top.

To prevent the table being dominated by those who have played most games, you simply divide the point total by the number of games. Only players with minimum 25 games in any calendar month shown in rankings. then players can't just sit on their hands when they get to the top. You could have monthly and annual rankings.

With regard to penalties for playing 'weaker' players, that's just lame. I started M44 online with 300 plays of the boardgame under my belt for Petes sake, and I suspect the majority of online players have experience.

To prevent the table being dominated by those who have played most games, you simply divide the point total by the number of games. Only players with minimum 25 games in any calendar month shown in rankings. then players can't just sit on their hands when they get to the top. You could have monthly and annual rankings.

I'm not sure if it's going to be feasible for DoW to scrap their whole ranking system (even if people aren't very happy with it) but I really like the idea of having a monthly ranking! That way new people could try to take the top spot each month and you could try to outdo your own performance from one month to the next. I think this part of your idea is wonderful!

To prevent the table being dominated by those who have played most games, you simply divide the point total by the number of games. Only players with minimum 25 games in any calendar month shown in rankings. then players can't just sit on their hands when they get to the top. You could have monthly and annual rankings.

I'm not sure if it's going to be feasible for DoW to scrap their whole ranking system (even if people aren't very happy with it) but I really like the idea of having a monthly ranking! That way new people could try to take the top spot each month and you could try to outdo your own performance from one month to the next. I think this part of your idea is wonderful!

I think it's only worth having a monthly ranking if we have a meaningful ranking calulation personally.

I think you are being way too negative about not replacing it. Eric's first response to me about changing the ingot pay system for special units was QUOTE "not going to happen". Kudos to him for changing his mind.

It would be a relativeky EASY thing to reset all rankings to zero... say on 1st Janusry and to implement a sensible system (not necessarilly my own) as from then. We are still in beta testing for heavens sake !

Let's get EVERYTHING right before moving out of beta. There are so many complaints about the crazy way prestige points are calculated that it would be daft NOT to change it.

If I'm not wrong, DOW has already said that the skill pts earned/loss is proportionate to the scenario's win/loss ratio. In addition to that, they modify those base points with other factors like the player rank difference and some other secret sauce.

My suggestion would be to implement some sort of skill point rot, i.e. a player's skill points decreases in small amounts on a daily basis. This keeps people on their toes and prevents camping after a long winning streak

If I'm not wrong, DOW has already said that the skill pts earned/loss is proportionate to the scenario's win/loss ratio. In addition to that, they modify those base points with other factors like the player rank difference and some other secret sauce.

My suggestion would be to implement some sort of skill point rot, i.e. a player's skill points decreases in small amounts on a daily basis. This keeps people on their toes and prevents camping after a long winning streak

It's totally cockeyed. You can win 3 points or lose 27 points in a single (same) game and opponent. It's random and meaningless. Scenario difficuly is patently not a major factor in the points awarded.

I think you are being way too negative about not replacing it. Eric's first response to me about changing the ingot pay system for special units was QUOTE "not going to happen". Kudos to him for changing his mind.

Touché. I'm not trying to be negative about replacing the ranking system and I agree that it needs to be worked on...and I think that we've seen several interesting and workable ideas on the forum for how to change the system. I'm just pointing out that DoW has already put a lot of time and effort into the current ranking system and it might make more sense to tweak the system we already have instead of scrapping the whole thing.

Quote:

It would be a relativeky EASY thing to reset all rankings to zero... say on 1st Janusry and to implement a sensible system (not necessarilly my own) as from then.

Agreed. I would be easy to get rid of the whole thing...but again, it might just take some small changes in the current system to get rid of the big swings in our Skill scores.

Quote:

We are still in beta testing for heavens sake !

Let's get EVERYTHING right before moving out of beta. There are so many complaints about the crazy way prestige points are calculated that it would be daft NOT to change it.

Phil.

I totally agree that we're still in the beta stage and we should be improving everything we can before version 1.0 comes out! I like your idea and I think your ranking system could work...and I'll even be happy (for you) if DoW decides that your idea is the best one out there and they adopt the whole thing!

However, I'm pointing out that it might not make sense for DoW to scrap everything they've done so far when maybe they could just fix something simple. Then there's also the chance that they'll leave the skill system as it is and we'll just have to ignore it (like I generally do at this point) if we don't like it.

I think you are being way too negative about not replacing it. Eric's first response to me about changing the ingot pay system for special units was QUOTE "not going to happen". Kudos to him for changing his mind.

Touché. I'm not trying to be negative about replacing the ranking system and I agree that it needs to be worked on...and I think that we've seen several interesting and workable ideas on the forum for how to change the system. I'm just pointing out that DoW has already put a lot of time and effort into the current ranking system and it might make more sense to tweak the system we already have instead of scrapping the whole thing.

Quote:

It would be a relativeky EASY thing to reset all rankings to zero... say on 1st Janusry and to implement a sensible system (not necessarilly my own) as from then.

Agreed. I would be easy to get rid of the whole thing...but again, it might just take some small changes in the current system to get rid of the big swings in our Skill scores.

Quote:

We are still in beta testing for heavens sake !

Let's get EVERYTHING right before moving out of beta. There are so many complaints about the crazy way prestige points are calculated that it would be daft NOT to change it.

Phil.

I totally agree that we're still in the beta stage and we should be improving everything we can before version 1.0 comes out! I like your idea and I think your ranking system could work...and I'll even be happy (for you) if DoW decides that your idea is the best one out there and they adopt the whole thing!

However, I'm pointing out that it might not make sense for DoW to scrap everything they've done so far when maybe they could just fix something simple. Then there's also the chance that they'll leave the skill system as it is and we'll just have to ignore it (like I generally do at this point) if we don't like it.

I'm just saying...

Personally just as happy if DOW fix their own ranking calculation, just so long as it is fixed sensibly. I was just offering a possible solution, but I'm sure there are many better possible ones than the current system.

I think a monthly ranking as well as an annual one would be 'good for business' for DOW, but as i have said, we need to BELIEVE in the rankings

I think a monthly ranking as well as an annual one would be 'good for business' for DOW, but as i have said, we need to BELIEVE in the rankings

I agree completely and I think a lot of players would enjoy 'fighting' for the top spot each month and then in turn battling over the top anual spot. Granted, the players fighting for the top spots would probably be the same few players who are already in the top spots right now...but I guess that would make sense.

I wonder if it could be broken down a little bit further and we could have a top German general (top ranked for German battles) and a top Allied general. This might be too much of a good thing, but it's a thought.

The current ranking system is bad, bad , bad. When playing as the underdog and losing the same skill after playing only the underdog side as the opponent wins as the favoured side is just stupid. If DOW worked too long on this ranking system then simply they do not see the forest from the trees anymore.

Th OPs idea is a way better one then the current. Likewise if the game forced players to play both sides for a ranking score that would be also way better.

Just played Operation Cobra 2 game both sides. I tend to ask for a game from both sides now because I believed the skill calculation makes more sense. Well it does not.

Playing the slightly disadvantaged Axis side I lost 4 to 5 medals. I lost 18 skill.

Playing the Allied I won 5 to 1. I won 13 skill back.

The total result is I bettered my opponent 9 to 6 and lost 5 skill net. I am asking Yann how is it fair???

It turned out my opponent had a lower skillscore and that was possibly the reason. However there is no possibility to check the skill of the opponent once you reply to an invite. For me this is totally discouraging.

Ah and by the way the opponent was a Captain rank so I thought he was the higher skilled one.

The total result is I bettered my opponent 9 to 6 and lost 5 skill net. I am asking Yann how is it fair???

It turned out my opponent had a lower skillscore and that was possibly the reason.

This has happened to me on more than a few occasions and I while I don't care much about the Skill system, I can see how it would be very disheartening! Just to clarify the current system (and I'm not a math person so I can only speak to this in general terms) the Skill system takes into account:

1) Comparative Skill between the players - I believe this is the largest factor determining your increase or loss of skill points, but I'm not sure about that.

2) The Battle % - the system does take into account if you're playing a more difficult side.

3) Your margin of victory - again, the system does take into account how much you win by.

These factors may not be the only ones being considered, but they are major players in the calculations and they're the ones I remember from our conversations on this topic. Like we've all seen, the calculation is made for each battle and does not consider the total result, like Axel talked about.

What if this system wasn't calculated until you had played two games of the same battle against the same opponent? Would that be a more accurate gauge of Skill? I'm not sure what programming would go into doing this, since the computer would have to remember who you played so that if you couldn't have a re-match until a few months later it would still recognize the fact and calculate your resulting skill score, but maybe that would solve some of the frustration... What do people think?

It turned out my opponent had a lower skillscore and that was possibly the reason. However there is no possibility to check the skill of the opponent once you reply to an invite. For me this is totally discouraging.

Ah and by the way the opponent was a Captain rank so I thought he was the higher skilled one.

You have mentioned the frustration of not having information once you're ready to start a battle or before accepting someone's invitation, and I think I've heard this complaint from others as well. I agree that we need more information on the players we are battling, so this might be something to request in the "Feature Request" thread up at the top.

People asked for the ability to see how much GI they had left and we saw it in the next update, so this might be the same kind of thing! It's worth asking for and would help all of us know what we're getting into before we start a battle.

Sometimes, I simply don't have time to play both sides...not sure that players shouldn't get ranking because of that. I tend to try to inform my opponent of this before the battle starts (not always possible) and allow them to choose the side. I tend to play the underdog side against lower ranked opponents which gives them a better chance to win.

I do think the system could take into account a few things to be more fair though. Luck however does play a part in the game (sometimes a large part when the dice decide to be nasty) I'm not sure how they can take that into account but when you lose because of the dice it sours the game.

While thinking about this apparent problem with the Skill system, I had a realization!

Memoir '44 Online is in line with Tournament Rules and makes no secret of the fact:

1) No Undo on Cards Played- I like the fact that I have to think through every card I pick and be careful where I click because there is not way to take back the card you played. It makes me slow down and focus on the game and I hope this feature stays in the game (though I know some people don't agree...that's a discussion for another thread).

2) No Undo on Unit Movements - like above, I enjoy that I have to think through my moves and be careful because there's no going back!

3) Official Rules are enforced - again, I love this aspect of the game. We are all playing by the official rules and there's no way to find 'loopholes' around the rules.

But then the whole Skill System falls away from the tournament rules idea. I've never played in a tournament (more's the pity) but my understanding is that for each round, players have to play both sides of a battle and the overall winner moves on.

Memoir '44 makes no secret about the fact that battles are not balanced and the board game recommends that players switch sides to determine who is the better skilled general. I realize that life sometimes gets in the way of playing two battles back-to-back (it's happened to me more than once) but I think that playing the same player twice in the same battle should be highly encouraged, if not required.

If players were somehow expected to play both sides of a battle (either through witholding a Skill score until both are completed or another means) then I think the Skill system would make more sense, Memoir '44 Online would be more in line with the whole Tournament Rules idea, and it would fall in line with the original intent of the board game!

Lots of good thinking going on here. However as my example shows above enforcing to play both sides is not enough in itself. Skill should be allocated at the end of both sides finish and not after each game to avoid losing skill while being better.

Rereading your post actually made me realize that what you write is actually the same

The way it is done now is awful. One loses a lot of skill if just hardly beaten as the underdog. Go for the other side and win by large yet you get less skill back. There is no chance checking the opponent so that you actually have a minimal chance to come out on the plus side at all. I cannot fathom how people got to skills close to 1700 without either screening opponents and avoid playing the lower skilled ones (this is not something I would want to do) or only playing the favoure side (also bad gamesmanship)

I cannot fathom how people got to skills close to 1700 without either screening opponents and avoid playing the lower skilled ones (this is not something I would want to do) or only playing the favoure side (also bad gamesmanship)

I've never screened my opponents and welcome all comers! I am glad to play anyone of any rank and yes, I often play as the underdog (the greater the glory! LOL!).

So how did I get to my skill score? Simple, I play a lot and know the strategies, have flexibility and when in doubt, attack. It doesn't always work but if played right, you can reach the top...just good luck staying there! There is always going to be someone better than you who comes along and knocks you out. It happens.

My suggestions. Play. Play people ranked lower than you (they might be quite skilled and can show you a trick or two) play people ranked higher than you (you might show them a thing or two). Play as the underdog, it will earn you more points if you win and you'll lose less points if you lose. Try to play both sides...it's just good sportsmanship but if you can't (again, sometimes I can only get a game in) then make your opponent aware of that and allow them to pick the side they would want to play. Again if they give you the underdog, look at it as an opportunity not a penalty.

And accept that you will lose games. Luck certainly plays a factor and it can go for you or against you. So be graceful with your opponent. Thank them for playing.

I cannot fathom how people got to skills close to 1700 without either screening opponents and avoid playing the lower skilled ones (this is not something I would want to do) or only playing the favoure side (also bad gamesmanship)

I've never screened my opponents and welcome all comers! I am glad to play anyone of any rank and yes, I often play as the underdog (the greater the glory! LOL!).

So how did I get to my skill score? Simple, I play a lot and know the strategies, have flexibility and when in doubt, attack. It doesn't always work but if played right, you can reach the top...just good luck staying there! There is always going to be someone better than you who comes along and knocks you out. It happens.

My suggestions. Play. Play people ranked lower than you (they might be quite skilled and can show you a trick or two) play people ranked higher than you (you might show them a thing or two). Play as the underdog, it will earn you more points if you win and you'll lose less points if you lose. Try to play both sides...it's just good sportsmanship but if you can't (again, sometimes I can only get a game in) then make your opponent aware of that and allow them to pick the side they would want to play. Again if they give you the underdog, look at it as an opportunity not a penalty.

And accept that you will lose games. Luck certainly plays a factor and it can go for you or against you. So be graceful with your opponent. Thank them for playing.

And above all, have fun. That's what playing is really all about.

Good luck and have fun....hope to see you all on the field!

Yep. I got up to 1724 before I seemed to hit a glass ceiling. Then I was getting 3-5 points for a win and losing 25-30 for a loss. Soon found my way back to 1500 again

This is precisely because I would never screen my opponents. I could have avoided most of my points loss (and improved my point gains) if I had only played against players of a similar skill. But that would be totally against the spirit of the game.. I don't see why we should be penalised for playing the game the way it should be.

I've played hundreds of games and know pretty much all the wrinkles in the game. But it's a game not a simulation, and nothing can guarantee a win. It's easy to lose 100 points in 4 games.

It seemed ridiculous that I had overperformed in 75% of my games yet was back at 1500 again.

If DOW don't chnge their ranking calculation system soon, why don't we just ignore it and set up our own ladder system?

my computer at office likes to behave strangely, if I stay too long in the lobby or after game statistic, it tends to freeze and I can do nothing

so usually after logging in, i usually went to create a game as fast as I can before it hung up, so I never have a chance to screen any opponents, and if after any game, I quickly rushed out and create another game, pls apologize as I'm only avoiding the frozen thing

and onto the ranking system, I support phil's suggestion, a neat idea and DoW should implemented it later in the final version

See my other thread entitled about skillscore loss in an underdog situation.

What really bugs me is that they preach that ranking is not that important and one should concentrate on achievements or rank, yet:

1/ Ranking and skill changes are totally in your face during the game experience. It is there black on white how many you lost and what your new skill is. (Ehich of course has nothing to do with real skill)

2/ Achievements of others cannot be looked at at all in game or out of game.

3/ Rank progression is totally obscure to say the least.

At every occasion when the same that you describe happens to me I say that it was the last game ever. Very soon it is really going to be.

Hey, guys, I have an idea. Let's gather some data and see exactly what's happening.

For each game you play, record the Allies' win percentage, pre-game ratings of you and your opponent, which side you played, game score, "average" medals for each side, and how the ratings changed. (I'll do this, too.) Tabulate them in a spreadsheet.

After you have a couple dozen of these, print a screenshot to PDF and post it on your User Page, and post a note here that you've done so.

When we have an adequate number of data points, I (or someone else) can analyze them. If the formula's adjustments seem to be out of line with real-life experience, we can suggest improvements.

As the saying goes, "It's better to light one candle than to curse the darkness."